18 Year Old Left Braindead After School Resource Officer Fires At Car Driving Away

[Gondwanaland]

LA Times confirms the policy....

According to a use-of-force policy from Long Beach Unified’s school safety office, officers are not permitted to fire at a moving vehicle. Firearms may be discharged only when reasonably necessary and justified under the circumstances, such as self-defense and the protection of others, the policy states. The policy also bars shooting at fleeing suspects.

Chris Eftychiou, a spokesman for the Long Beach Unified School District, said the school district was “carefully reviewing multiple aspects” while cooperating with the Long Beach Police Department, which is working with the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office on an investigation into the shooting.

Yep. Time for him to be fired, lose his pension, and be charged.

[Cow Poke]

Yep. Time for him to be fired, lose his pension, and be charged.

There needs to be due process, but, so far, I don't see him keeping his job, and possibly even being prosecuted.

But we're only going on what we have seen thus far.

[Gondwanaland]

Well if someone actually tried to run down a police officer (I don't see that as what happened here though) then it would be attempted murder and the car would be a deadly weapon, not so a fist. So it would be no different than if someone took a shot at a police officer and ran way with the gun. The officer would be correct in trying to stop the driver from getting away. He has shown he is willing to use his car as a deadly weapon and attempted murder is a felony.

Nope. The policy is no firing at vehicles or fleeing suspects. He violated it. And sorry, but many major police forces around the country have policies against firing at vehicles unless they are actively committing a felony with a(nother) weapon (like doing a drive by shooting), or if an officer is in imminent danger (car coming directly at them with no way to get out of the way). The cop fired as the car left and was well past him.

Like I stated earlier: it's been NYC policy, for example, for 45 years not to do so, unless the driver has a gun and is actively firing at police (if they're, of all cities, intelligent enough to ban it, anyone still doing it should be ashamed of themselves). Why? Because it's likely to hit innocent people, and unlikely to cause the 4,000 pound vehicle to stop as it's unlikely to even hit the driver let alone cause them to stop. And if they do get lucky and hit the driver and kill or even just injure them, it's highly possible their foot will stay/push harder on the gas, leading to an out of control speeding up vehicle that puts everyone at risk.

[Cow Poke]

Nope. The policy is no firing at vehicles or fleeing suspects. He violated it. And sorry, but many major police forces around the country have policies against firing at vehicles unless they are actively committing a felony with a(nother) weapon (like doing a drive by shooting), or if an officer is in imminent danger (car coming directly at them with no way to get out of the way). The cop fired as the care left and was well past him.

To be fair, Sparko was giving a hypothetical, even with the disclaimer "(I don't see that as what happened here though)".

[Gondwanaland]

To be fair, Sparko was giving a hypothetical, even with the disclaimer "(I don't see that as what happened here though)".

I didn't see that so fair enough there, but my point still firmly stands. Even if it had been an attempt to hit the officer, unless it's clear he, say, has a weapon (and preferably is firing it), there's no cause to fire as he drives away as the officer is no longer in imminent threat of life.

[Sparko]

Nope. The policy is no firing at vehicles or fleeing suspects. He violated it. And sorry, but many major police forces around the country have policies against firing at vehicles unless they are actively committing a felony with a(nother) weapon (like doing a drive by shooting), or if an officer is in imminent danger (car coming directly at them with no way to get out of the way). The cop fired as the car left and was well past him.

I wasn't taking about him, I specifically said that I didn't think it applied to what he did. I was talking generally in regard to someone trying to kill an officer by running him down in a car. That would be attempted murder. That didn't happen here. But CP weighed in on what I said. I will defer to his knowledge.

[Cow Poke]

I didn't see that so fair enough there, but my point still firmly stands. Even if it had been an attempt to hit the officer, unless it's clear he, say, has a weapon (and preferably is firing it), there's no cause to fire as he drives away as the officer is no longer in imminent threat of life.

And I have spelled that out in several posts.

[Gondwanaland]

I wasn't taking about him, I specifically said that I didn't think it applied to what he did. I was talking generally in regard to someone trying to kill an officer by running him down in a car. That would be attempted murder. That didn't happen here. But CP weighed in on what I said. I will defer to his knowledge.

Yep, I didn't notice/absore that part where you said that wrt him.

[myth]

Nope. The policy is no firing at vehicles or fleeing suspects. He violated it. And sorry, but many major police forces around the country have policies against firing at vehicles unless they are actively committing a felony with a(nother) weapon (like doing a drive by shooting), or if an officer is in imminent danger (car coming directly at them with no way to get out of the way). The cop fired as the car left and was well past him.

Like I stated earlier: it's been NYC policy, for example, for 45 years not to do so, unless the driver has a gun and is actively firing at police (if they're, of all cities, intelligent enough to ban it, anyone still doing it should be ashamed of themselves). Why? Because it's likely to hit innocent people, and unlikely to cause the 4,000 pound vehicle to stop as it's unlikely to even hit the driver let alone cause them to stop. And if they do get lucky and hit the driver and kill or even just injure them, it's highly possible their foot will stay/push harder on the gas, leading to an out of control speeding up vehicle that puts everyone at risk.

It's worth emphasizing that a policy violation is a not a criminal offense, and the worst that can happen is they discipline you at work (as well as potentially more civil liability). My employer also has a word-sandwich of a ban on firing at moving vehicles, though with some exceptions. But I can still do it and face zero criminal liability, even if I clearly violated the policy, because it's not against the law. Additionally, I noticed someone here refer to a blanket policy against firing at fleeing suspects. I'd like to comment that is stupid in the extreme and whoever enacted it should lose their ability to be a cop, anywhere. That's a bunch of political BS to make people happy.

So, generally: if you use a deadly weapon against me and then attempt to flee, I can use deadly force to "effect an arrest". So if you shoot at me and then run, it is 100% legal for me to shoot you in the back as you're running away. This is presumably because of the risk to the public and/or other law enforcement officers if the suspect gets away. In reference to my comment about stupid policies, imagine a scenario where I confront a school shooter inside a school, issuing verbal commands which the shooter ignores and then moves to step away from me into a classroom (still holding a gun). You can bet your last dollar I'm shooting him immediately. But technically he's a fleeing suspect. See how dumb blanket bans are?

Now let's discuss shooting at fleeing vehicles. First off, if the vehicle occupants/driver weren't shooting at someone immediately before driving away, then in most situations there's no use of a deadly weapon. The "attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon" is key in my state, as that's one of elements for authorizing use of deadly force. This is likely fairly similar elsewhere. Back to the vehicle thing, though. If the driver tries to intentionally run over an officer, then they have just used the vehicle as a deadly weapon and demonstrated they have both the means and will do try to kill someone. In that situation, it's totally legal to shoot at the fleeing vehicle. However, just driving towards an officer can sometimes also simply be the offender trying to escape, particularly if the officer was blocking their exit. So it can get pretty murky, pretty quick.

Regarding this incident, I did watch the video 2-3 times. Knowing only what I saw in that video, I don't see any justification for shooting at the vehicle. And as CP pointed out, officers discharging their weapons into a vehicle have to be mindful that other people than the driver may be in the vehicle. Doesn't matter if you're an officer or not, everyone discharging a firearm owns each and every projectile they discharge, and they're responsible for what happens because of it. Shooting into a vehicle with multiple occupants, even if the driver has tried to run an officer over, is still highly irresponsible. I can only imagine that being justified in some truly crazy, unlikely scenarios.

I would also like to add, in response to your OP, that perhaps you should be more precise with your language. If you meant "bad cop" as in 'incompetent cop', I'd be inclined to agree based on the available evidence. If you meant "bad cop" as in corrupt or evil, then I would suggest we don't have any evidence to make that sort of evaluation. Cops are real people, working jobs with high liability. Sometimes, cops who are good people make a straight-up high liability mistake. I'm not saying they shouldn't be held accountable, but the public doesn't do anyone any favors by vilifying them and acting as if they're evil incarnate. For instance, assuming racial motivation for Derek Chauvin's actions against George Floyd still seems to be entirely unfounded. Whether or not Derek Chauvin should be in jail is another question. Sorry for the sidebar, I just get frustrated with frequent assumptions by the public as to motivations of racial or other bias, which are usually without foundation.

If you want to read about someone who was a bad cop in the 'corrupt' sense, check out this: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58710164

[Gondwanaland]

It's worth emphasizing that a policy violation is a not a criminal offense, and the worst that can happen is they discipline you at work (as well as potentially more civil liability). My employer also has a word-sandwich of a ban on firing at moving vehicles, though with some exceptions. But I can still do it and face zero criminal liability, even if I clearly violated the policy, because it's not against the law. Additionally, I noticed someone here refer to a blanket policy against firing at fleeing suspects. I'd like to comment that is stupid in the extreme and whoever enacted it should lose their ability to be a cop, anywhere. That's a bunch of political BS to make people happy.

This policy violation involved negligent manslaughter at the VERY least, and needs direct criminal consequences over the homicide of this young girl. If someone thinks otherwise, well, they're contributors to the current problem in policing in the US, IMO.

So, generally: if you use a deadly weapon against me and then attempt to flee, I can use deadly force to "effect an arrest". So if you shoot at me and then run, it is 100% legal for me to shoot you in the back as you're running away. This is presumably because of the risk to the public and/or other law enforcement officers if the suspect gets away. In reference to my comment about stupid policies, imagine a scenario where I confront a school shooter inside a school, issuing verbal commands which the shooter ignores and then moves to step away from me into a classroom (still holding a gun). You can bet your last dollar I'm shooting him immediately. But technically he's a fleeing suspect. See how dumb blanket bans are?

I haven't seen where anyone made such an H_A sort of argument.

Now let's discuss shooting at fleeing vehicles. First off, if the vehicle occupants/driver weren't shooting at someone immediately before driving away, then in most situations there's no use of a deadly weapon. The "attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon" is key in my state, as that's one of elements for authorizing use of deadly force. This is likely fairly similar elsewhere. Back to the vehicle thing, though. If the driver tries to intentionally run over an officer, then they have just used the vehicle as a deadly weapon and demonstrated they have both the means and will do try to kill someone. In that situation, it's totally legal to shoot at the fleeing vehicle. However, just driving towards an officer can sometimes also simply be the offender trying to escape, particularly if the officer was blocking their exit. So it can get pretty murky, pretty quick.

Then your state is incredibly backward.

Regarding this incident, I did watch the video 2-3 times. Knowing only what I saw in that video, I don't see any justification for shooting at the vehicle. And as CP pointed out, officers discharging their weapons into a vehicle have to be mindful that other people than the driver may be in the vehicle. Doesn't matter if you're an officer or not, everyone discharging a firearm owns each and every projectile they discharge, and they're responsible for what happens because of it. Shooting into a vehicle with multiple occupants, even if the driver has tried to run an officer over, is still highly irresponsible. I can only imagine that being justified in some truly crazy, unlikely scenarios.

Thus the negligent homicide at the VERY least.

I would also like to add, in response to your OP, that perhaps you should be more precise with your language. If you meant "bad cop" as in 'incompetent cop', I'd be inclined to agree based on the available evidence. If you meant "bad cop" as in corrupt or evil, then I would suggest we don't have any evidence to make that sort of evaluation. Cops are real people, working jobs with high liability. Sometimes, cops who are good people make a straight-up high liability mistake. I'm not saying they shouldn't be held accountable, but the public doesn't do anyone any favors by vilifying them and acting as if they're evil incarnate. For instance, assuming racial motivation for Derek Chauvin's actions against George Floyd still seems to be entirely unfounded. Whether or not Derek Chauvin should be in jail is another question. Sorry for the sidebar, I just get frustrated with frequent assumptions by the public as to motivations of racial or other bias, which are usually without foundation.

If you want to read about someone who was a bad cop in the 'corrupt' sense, check out this: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58710164

No, I meant exactly what I said That some cops are worse does not make him somehow not a bad cop.. As to Chauvin, he was a bad cop whether he was racially motivated or not.

[Gondwanaland]

What is the officer's name? I would like to do a search on other stories on it.

So far, everything I see says the officer is not named, and is on suspension pending...

Something strange in that second sentence though --- it sounds to me like these are not commissioned peace officers, but "school safety officers" who are allowed to carry firearms.

In our schools in Texas, the school district will work with the local police department to hire (or subsidize) duly commissioned police officers to serve at the schools during school hours.

This almost sounds like private security guards who are allowed to carry guns.

Appears the name has been released now. Eddie F. Gonzalez. He's been placed on leave now.

Apparently was hired as a School Resource/Safety Officer 8 months ago.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/didn-t-jo...202924397.html


Also found this (couldn't get a straight answer when I looked around at various websites on the school safety/resource officers, but this seems to answer the question) for Cowpoke:


https://www.latimes.com/california/s...er-experts-say

The Long Beach school district employs nine full-time and two part-time safety officers, as well as four supervisors, Eftychiou said.

The school district is a “separate government entity” from the Long Beach Police Department, the city said in a statement, and the officer involved in Monday’s shooting is not employed by the city.

District officers provide their own duty weapons, which are approved by their supervisor and selected from a list that is accepted by law enforcement agencies, Eftychiou said.

Monday’s incident is the first shooting involving a safety officer in the program’s 30-year existence, Eftychiou said.

A retired Long Beach Unified school safety officer, who asked to remain anonymous, said officers go through a police academy followed by a short probationary period, but their training is “not anywhere close” to what officers at the Long Beach Police Department and similar agencies receive.

School safety officers were told not to engage in issues off campus, he said. They can detain people but cannot make arrests beyond citizen’s arrests.

The retired officer, who said he spent more than a dozen years in the same position as the officer involved in Monday’s shooting, said he studied videos of the shooting from various angles and felt the officer was in the wrong — both for unholstering his weapon and for firing it.

“What that officer did was completely out of line of the protocol,” he said.

So,sounds like they go through a police academy but don't get full training that an officer would have to, they aren't supposed to engage off-campus in situations (this was off-campus), and can detain and only make citizen's arrests.
So pretty much armed security guards for the district, I guess? Given that I'm surprised something hasn't happened even earlier than now. Sounds like a disaster of an idea.

[myth]

This policy violation involved negligent manslaughter at the VERY least, and needs direct criminal consequences over the homicide of this young girl. If someone thinks otherwise, well, they're contributors to the current problem in policing in the US, IMO.

You're confusing the two issues, which I went to some detail to explain. Policy does not equal law. I didn't say the cop wasn't guilty of negligent homicide.

I haven't seen where anyone made such an H_A sort of argument.

I'm both offended by that, and also laughing in irony as you do EXACTYLY what H_A is currently doing in another thread to my other example, right at this very moment. My example is relevant as a demonstration that certain blanket policies are bad. Just because you don't like the point it makes doesn't give you call to dismiss it with an insult. We LITERALLY train according to the details you're dismissing.

Then your state is incredibly backward.

No, my state values the lives of innocent people and acknowledges that sometimes, you have to stop the threat immediately. You are, frankly, incredibly uninformed and I'm beginning to doubt your ability to think critically. The implication of your statement here is that, in my example, I should allow the school shooter to walk into a classroom full of kids and kill them. Because my state's laws are "backwards" for valuing the lives of the children more than the bad guy with a gun. Do you acknowledge this implication, or would you like to retract your incredibly ignorant statement?

Thus the negligent homicide at the VERY least.

Agreed. Though I should note that your capital "very" implies you suspect a lot, which I highly doubt you have any evidence for.

No, I meant exactly what I said That some cops are worse does not make him somehow not a bad cop.. As to Chauvin, he was a bad cop whether he was racially motivated or not.

So, you're one of those short-sighted emotional leftists who doesn't understand what evidence is, and you're willing to believe anything that justifies your view of yourself as the moral crusader against dark forces? Good to know. I'm making a few logical leaps here, but you know...if the shoe fits.

I didn't say Chauvin wasn't bad, I merely used him as an example of leftists assumptions about motivations. But I forgot, you're unable to handle when I argue by example because that's something H_A would do.

[Gondwanaland]

You're confusing the two issues, which I went to some detail to explain. Policy does not equal law. I didn't say the cop wasn't guilty of negligent homicide.

You stated that "It's worth emphasizing that a policy violation is a not a criminal offense, and the worst that can happen is they discipline you at work (as well as potentially more civil liability)." Clearly, in this case the policy violation should and very well may be (if they don't sweep it under the rug) be a criminal offense.

I'm both offended by that, and also laughing in irony as you do EXACTYLY what H_A is currently doing in another thread to my other example, right at this very moment. My example is relevant as a demonstration that certain blanket policies are bad. Just because you don't like the point it makes doesn't give you call to dismiss it with an insult. We LITERALLY train according to the details you're dismissing.

But no one put forth such a blanket policy. Which is what makes you just like H_A.

No, my state values the lives of innocent people and acknowledges that sometimes, you have to stop the threat immediately. You are, frankly, incredibly uninformed and I'm beginning to doubt your ability to think critically. The implication of your statement here is that, in my example, I should allow the school shooter to walk into a classroom full of kids and kill them. Because my state's laws are "backwards" for valuing the lives of the children more than the bad guy with a gun. Do you acknowledge this implication, or would you like to retract your incredibly ignorant statement?

No, your state allows you to shoot someone if you think they drove at you, even if they are no longer a direct threat to you, by your own admission.

Agreed. Though I should note that your capital "very" implies you suspect a lot, which I highly doubt you have any evidence for.



So, you're one of those short-sighted emotional leftists

I'm a libertarian, sweetie.

who doesn't understand what evidence is, and you're willing to believe anything that justifies your view of yourself as the moral crusader against dark forces? Good to know. I'm making a few logical leaps here, but you know...if the shoe fits.

I didn't say Chauvin wasn't bad, I merely used him as an example of leftists assumptions about motivations. But I forgot, you're unable to handle when I argue by example because that's something H_A would do.

No, I'm just someone who despises bad cops and those who try to defend them. And in this case, turns out the dude was essentially a glorified security guard allowed to have a gun by the district, not even a real cop.

[myth]

You stated that "It's worth emphasizing that a policy violation is a not a criminal offense, and the worst that can happen is they discipline you at work (as well as potentially more civil liability)." Clearly, in this case the policy violation should and very well may be (if they don't sweep it under the rug) be a criminal offense.

There's no need to get sucked into a debate here. You made a comment that sounded like you thought the cop should go to jail for a policy violation. I decided not to assume you knew better, and proceeded to describe in general terms how this stuff works for the sack of clarity for you and/or other readers. If you understand the difference, cool. There's no need to argue that I think the cop in this case doesn't deserve any sort of punishment.

But no one put forth such a blanket policy. Which is what makes you just like H_A

We can agree to disagree. I read the comment as a blanket policy against shooting fleeing suspects, and responded in kind. If that's not what was meant, then ok.

No, your state allows you to shoot someone if you think they drove at you, even if they are no longer a direct threat to you, by your own admission.

That's not what I said, though it's close. Details matter, sweetie.

Whether or not the person is "no longer a direct threat to you" is not the legal standard for the use of deadly force, no matter how badly you'd like that to be the case. For instance, my state's prison guards (Correctional Officers, to be technically correct) can shoot and kill a person attempting to escape confinement for the conviction of a felony. If they are "attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon", then deadly force is authorized. And there are a lot of perfectly legitimate reasons why it should be. If you're curious, see previous school shooting example, then imagine variations of that not in a school setting.

I'm a libertarian, sweetie.

Lol. Did you mean "anti-police political agitator making judgements about things I'm not qualified to assess"?

No, I'm just someone who despises bad cops and those who try to defend them. And in this case, turns out the dude was essentially a glorified security guard allowed to have a gun by the district, not even a real cop.

I despise bad (corrupt/evil) cops too. I'm just not willing to assume that EVERY SINGLE COP who makes a mistake in a heated situation fits that category. Seriously, have you never made a mistake at work? This is literally our day job, and we can spend years not making a catastrophic mistake before goofing in a bad way. It's bad enough that some innocent woman is dead and he's probably going to prison and definitely losing his career, there's no need to assign nefarious motivations without evidence. Seriously, the situation is dramatic enough with sensationalizing it further. What is it that you gain by assuming the worst without evidence?

[Gondwanaland]

There's no need to get sucked into a debate here. You made a comment that sounded like you thought the cop should go to jail for a policy violation. I decided not to assume you knew better, and proceeded to describe in general terms how this stuff works for the sack of clarity for you and/or other readers. If you understand the difference, cool. There's no need to argue that I think the cop in this case doesn't deserve any sort of punishment.

Fair enough. I did get the difference. His policy violation in this case was a crime at the same time.

We can agree to disagree. I read the comment as a blanket policy against shooting fleeing suspects, and responded in kind. If that's not what was meant, then ok.

It's not. I've noted in a numebr of posts exceptions where shooting is actually allowed.

That's not what I said, though it's close. Details matter, sweetie.

Whether or not the person is "no longer a direct threat to you" is not the legal standard for the use of deadly force, no matter how badly you'd like that to be the case. For instance, my state's prison guards (Correctional Officers, to be technically correct) can shoot and kill a person attempting to escape confinement for the conviction of a felony. If they are "attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon", then deadly force is authorized. And there are a lot of perfectly legitimate reasons why it should be. If you're curious, see previous school shooting example, then imagine variations of that not in a school setting.

Not really relevant at all here.

Lol. Did you mean "anti-police political agitator making judgements about things I'm not qualified to assess"?

Being against bad police, and in favor of major police reform and massive increases in training does not make me such, no.

I despise bad (corrupt/evil) cops too. I'm just not willing to assume that EVERY SINGLE COP who makes a mistake in a heated situation fits that category. Seriously, have you never made a mistake at work? This is literally our day job, and we can spend years not making a catastrophic mistake before goofing in a bad way. It's bad enough that he's probably going to prison and definitely losing his career, there's no need to assign nefarious motivations without evidence. Seriously, the situation is dramatic enough with sensationalizing it further. What is it that you gain by assuming the worst without evidence?

I've made mistakes at work. Never have I fired at someone who was driving away from me, and killed an 18 year old girl. He's a bad.... well, can't even call him a cop. Bad pumped up security guard with a gun who wasn't supposed to even get involved in things off campus who decided to act like he was on Super Troopers IRL.